BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
I move, That the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill be now read a third time. It gives me great pleasure to introduce the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. The Labour Party appreciates the support of the House in making sure that this bill can be considered for passing before the Christmas break.
This is the first private bill that I have introduced as a member of Parliament. The bill has its origins with my predecessor, former senior Government whip and Labour MP for Christchurch Central, Tim Barnett. It is and has been a non-controversial bill. It has been given considerable scrutiny by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and changes have been made through the select committee process that are broadly in accordance both with the wishes of the bill’s promoters—that is, the Methodist Church of New Zealand—and with the existing legislation that is specific to other such trusts and their operation.
I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee as the bill has progressed through its stages. I also thank the Methodist Church of New Zealand, which is headquartered in my electorate of Christchurch Central, and Richard Cunliffe and Tanya Surrey, who are lawyers based in Queenstown for the law firm MACTODD and who have acted on behalf of the Methodist Church in bringing the bill to my attention.
The bill has a twofold purpose. First, it provides an alternative process to that provided under the existing legislative framework, the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, to vary charitable trusts relating to the Methodist Church. That is a cumbersome and expensive process, and this mechanism will allow the Methodist Church to make changes to trusts in a much more straightforward and cost-effective way. Secondly, the bill expands the purposes for which trusts’ funds and trusts’ properties relating to Methodist orphanages or Methodist children’s homes, as they have been held in the past, can be applied. These changes allow the Methodist Church to apply these funds and properties to provide care for children and young persons by means other than orphanages and children’s homes, which are no longer held, run, and operated by the Methodist Church.
Of the changes made in the process of the select committee considerations, a couple are worthy of particular note. One relates to clause 18, where we sought to clarify that the trust funds and properties to which Part 3 applies could be used only for charitable purposes. That amendment also removed any doubt as to whether the funds could be used for non-charitable purposes, unlikely as that might be, given that we are dealing with one of our major churches.
We also removed clause 21 and inserted a new clause 19A, to provide that trustees can be appointed or removed by the Methodist Church only after consultation with those trustees. This changed an earlier provision, under which trustees could have been removed by the annual conference of the Methodist Church. The precedent for that was based on section 20 of the Anglican Church Trusts Act. We were looking to accord the Methodists the same provisions as the Anglicans, but it was noted by the advisers to the committee that neither the Presbyterians nor the Catholics had such powers under their church trust deed Acts. So we have opted to join the Catholics and the Presbyterians rather than going with the Anglicans.
In conclusion, I again thank my colleagues on the select committee for their support. I thank the House for its support in seeing this bill back in the House prior to Christmas and, hopefully, for the conclusion of its passage forthwith.
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this
I am also pleased to rise and take a brief call on the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. I certainly endorse and agree with everything that Brendon Burns, the member who spoke before me, has said about the bill. Considering a bill like this is one of the many occasions when this House acts in a very multipartisan and supportive fashion. It is one of those opportunities when select committees come at a bill strictly on its merits and without any political overtones, and that makes it a very enjoyable process to work through.
The bill really is a case study of a lot of what we do in the House, which is working out where to draw the line so that people are given a path through what needs to be done, in a way that properly protects third parties, but, at the same time, ensures that it is no more onerous than it needs to be. The discussion we had at the select committee on this bill was very much along those lines. As Mr Burns has said, the Methodist Church found that it had a number of obsolete trusts gifted to it for various purposes that could no longer be carried out. It could have gone through the very long and expensive Charitable Trusts Act amendment process, but sought instead to come to the House, as other churches have done before it, to seek a streamlined process to allow that to be done without gobbling up too much of the money that had been left for charitable purposes. We certainly want to support the Church in that endeavour. All that was left for our committee to do was to ensure that it was done in the most appropriate way.
I want to pick up on two changes that the committee suggested and discuss them further. The first of those concerns the oversight of the Attorney-General. The bill, as it came to us after the first reading, suggested that most, but not all, of the amendments that the Methodist Church might make would go before the Attorney-General to make sure that there was a final level of objective oversight. We felt it was appropriate that all changes should have that oversight. The Church indicated that it did not have any issue with that, and saw very few cases where that would not happen anyway. But, again, I think it is an important step for us to ensure that there would be no situation where a change could be made without some sort of objective oversight on behalf of the House. I think that is a good change.
The final change, which Mr Burns referred to, was to omit what was clause 21 and insert its contents, changing the wording slightly, as a part of new clause 19A. The movement from clause 21 to clause 19A is more significant than the numbering itself suggests. It brought the clause out of Part 4 and inserted it into Part 3 of the Act. The change means that instead of the Methodist Church having the power to amend, appoint, and remove trustees of any trust that the Church is involved with, it makes sure that that power, which is a very important and significant power in trust law, is limited to the sorts of trusts that the Church has brought before us as problem trusts; that is, trusts that the Church needs to get into, tidy up, and fix in an efficient way, because the purposes are no longer practicable to be carried out. In that sphere, we had no problem with the Church having that power. The committee did feel, though, that it was too wide to give the Church an overarching power across any and all trusts it may be involved with. We made sure it had the power in respect of the trusts it had presented to us. I think the change is an important one.
I think the bill is now in a good state. We have certainly always supported the objective of the bill on the Government side of the House. I thank Mr Burns for bringing the bill and for his role in sponsoring it, and I thank my fellow committee members for working very constructively on it. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) Link to this
Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. Today is a great day. I feel particularly proud and, as Labour’s spokesperson for interfaith dialogue, I am quite humbled and privileged to stand to speak on the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. This is a time to reflect on Christmas and the Methodist Church’s generosity in giving.
First of all, I acknowledge the visionaries behind the bill, the members of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa, and, in Samoan, the Lotu Metotisi o Niu Sila. I acknowledge the huge contribution that the churches make—in this particular instance, the Methodist Church—because, essentially, this bill is about pastoral care. The second person whom I acknowledge is the bill’s sponsor, my colleague and respected friend Brendon Burns, Labour MP for Christchurch Central, who has given his unconditional commitment to the bill. I thank Brendon for the sterling work that he has done on this bill. Thirdly, I acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who worked on the technical details of the bill. Fourthly, I acknowledge the most vulnerable, who will benefit incredibly from the generosity of this legislation; the Methodist Church of New Zealand; and all of the people who have committed to it.
Brendon Burns and Amy Adams have already talked to the technical points in respect of the law in the third reading, but I stand to take a call to acknowledge the huge contribution that the Methodist Church makes. From the latest census data, we know that it is the fifth largest Christian denomination in New Zealand. I acknowledge the 53 Methodist Church communities around New Zealand, and the pastoral care and the support that they give to the most vulnerable through food banks, through supporting children and young people, families, and the elderly, and through a lot of the op shops operated by the Methodist Church.
I say today particularly—and I reflect on a former Prime Minister of New Zealand, David Lange, who was a Methodist—that the many values and principles the Church displays with regard to looking after others and those most in need are to be cherished. I feel very privileged to be part of a historic moment, acknowledging the wonderful contribution the Methodist Church makes, in supporting the third reading of this wonderful bill.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a short call on the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. The Green Party will support the bill, and we acknowledge the work of Brendon Burns in bringing it to the House. As my colleague Kevin Hague said in his first reading speech, an Act of Parliament should not be necessary to modernise and regulate the workings of the Methodist Church trusts, but, given the lack of progress in respect of updating the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, it is necessary. The Methodist Church is entitled to due process in order to allow the trusts to function, and it needs to have the ability to vary the foundation deeds of an organisation that first began its journey in Aotearoa in 1822. I have always been suspicious of the three Ms of colonisation: missionaries, the military, and mass migration.
Hon Mita RirinuiCATHERINE DELAHUNTY Link to this
Ha, ha! It is clear from the recorded history of the Methodist Church that it has a long association with tangata whenua and recognises the paramount importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Methodist Church today is a diverse church with a Treaty base, a strong recognition of Pasifika peoples, multicultural goals, and interesting traditions of supporting communities. The Greens are aware of many organisations that have benefited from its generosity and community support, and we are happy to see the Church become able to change its administrative framework, as other churches have done in order to function under more appropriate and modern terms. Like my colleague Kevin Hague, my reservation about the tradition of charity is no reflection on the often highly strategic support the Methodist Church has given to social services and projects for social well-being.
My reservation about charity stems from a new rhetoric in the community and voluntary sector, which is classically displayed in the latest copy of the Ministry of Social Development magazine Rise, where giving and philanthropy is elevated to a very high status, and having less money or a less well-paid job is rationalised through a rhetoric of saintly generosity and warm feelings that come from giving up a living wage. As a lifelong volunteer, I by no means belittle the generosity of spirit that basically runs our world. But I am suspicious of the new language around charity. Charity usually requires gratitude and will be available only to the deserving poor when the State steps back and encourages churches and charitable trusts to step into the breaches. Will the community and voluntary sector, including the churches, embrace the new rhetoric of support for the deserving poor? Will it cheer on Kevin Rudd as he requires bad beneficiaries’ money to be managed by social services and Government agencies that will decide when they can eat and what they can eat? This sounds ludicrous, but imitating Australia seems to be very popular here at the moment. There is little power for the recipients of charity.
Although we are supporting this bill for its practical intent, I quote the Queensland indigenous activist in the 1970s on the subject of charity who said: “If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” That challenge is for the Methodist Church, but, even more, it is for this House in dealing with both minor and major legislation intended to strengthen justice for all. We commend Brendon Burns for his effort and we support the bill. Kia ora.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
I am pleased to stand to respond to the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. In essence, this bill is about changing with the times. The bill aims to provide an appropriate mechanism for varying charitable trusts of the Methodist Church where the original objectives or purposes are now impossible, impractical, or inexpedient to carry out. Heaven forbid that Parliament would stand in the way of the Church and its determination that any course of action would be impossible, impractical, or inexpedient. On any level, it simply does not make any sense. But even more so for the Methodists. If we recall the origins of this Church in the mid-1700s, it was the fact that the movement emerged from a group of students who sought to order their lives methodically, to meet regularly for prayer and the study of the Scriptures. So when the Methodists tell us their trust provisions are no longer practicable, we would do well to listen.
But there is another, even more noble reason for being pleased to speak to this bill today. If we think of the broader Methodist ethos from its first days in Aotearoa, we see that it has been about a focus on social justice. Early Methodists campaigned against slavery, they fought for prison reform, and they advocated initiatives to improve literacy and health. The Methodist movement has been active in New Zealand, speaking out against the sin of sweated labour, racism, sexism, human rights abuses, unfair trading practices, Third World debt, environmental pollution, and other aspects. In my own electorate of Te Tai Tonga, Methodists have been responding to many of the social service needs of the community since their arrival in our rohe. They have run orphanages and aged-care homes. They have moved to providing early learning, adult learning, and youth training centres. They run programmes for community social workers, and provide advocacy and support. I want to acknowledge Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa for the work that it has done in supporting those New Zealanders who are more vulnerable than others.
I also want to acknowledge the initiative it has taken in trying to give life to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Methodist Church describes itself as a Treaty-based Church, expressing its governance in a bicultural power-sharing partnership between te taha Māori and tauiwi. Since 1973 Māori Methodism has been largely autonomous. Tangata whenua guide the Church, through te taha Māori, to understand exactly what a power-sharing partnership consists of.
All of this background is a vital preamble to this third reading of the bill. This is an organisation that is truly trying to do its best by New Zealanders, and in particular it is seeking to make amendments to enable the Church to provide more relevant and appropriate care for children and young people. The board is wanting to adopt simpler and more cost-effective provisions than those set out in the Charitable Trusts Act. It is also looking to use the trust funds or trust property for the broader purpose of the welfare of children in New Zealand.
I am also aware of the recent information that showed that the number of families needing special grants to pay for school uniforms, stationery, exam fees, and compulsory fees has soared in the past year. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that some 240,000 children live in families that do not qualify for the additional help given to others in the form of the in-work tax credit.
To bring all these points together: we have an organisation, the Methodist Church, that wants to improve upon its current provisions, in order to meet the needs of some of the more vulnerable citizens across our community; we have another organisation, the Child Poverty Action Group, that tells us that for many thousands of children in this land there are day-to-day difficulties that cause them to struggle with the capacity to live a decent life; and we have another organisation, the Māori Party, which is dedicated to advancing social justice, to eliminating poverty, and to the pursuit of whānau ora. We believe that the intentions of the Methodist Church are honourable ones, and we are happy to support this bill to enable the Church to fulfil its aspirations without hindrance. Kia ora.